The case holding that the claim for delivery of a child of a father is an abuse of parental authority

The abuse of parental authority can be seen as a case where the father and the mother have filed a complaint against the father by abandoning the father and the mother after the birth of the father and the mother, and the father and the mother have promised to marry with the father, and the father have made a marriage report with another woman after the birth of the father and the mother has cancelled the complaint, and the father and the mother has entered the name of only the child out of wedlock, and has reported the marriage with another woman, and the application for the permission of migration is suspended due to the authenticity of the father and the child, and the father has filed a claim for the delivery of the father to oppose the defect of the claim for consolation money and child support against the father and the mother.

Articles 914, 924, and 837 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Meu28 Delivered on November 30, 1970

Claimant

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 77Reu154 delivered on February 16, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

In light of the above facts, the court below's judgment that the non-party 1 was born on August 11, 1974 between the claimant and the defendant, and that the non-party 1 was registered in the applicant's family register by reporting the birth of the non-party 1 as of December 23, 1974 between the claimant and the defendant. The defendant reported the marriage to the non-party 2 as of February 9, 1976. At present, the defendant is bringing up one above non-party 1, and the defendant did not pay the cost of delivery to the non-party 1 at the time when the defendant delivered the above non-party 1, and the non-party 1 and the defendant were not allowed to move out the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1, and the defendant did not report the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 were not allowed to move out the above non-party 1 and the defendant.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jin-Hah Port (Presiding Justice)